By Francis H. Murray
Lawyers representing ten former members of Parliament of the opposition All Peoples Congress Party (APC) whose election results were overturned and were subsequently removed from parliament by the High Court have filed an application to the Supreme Court for interpretation of constitutional provisions related to election petitions.
Lawyer Africanus Sesay told the Court of Appeal that following a judgment delivered by the High Court on the 31st May 2019 in favor of the respondents, his team filed an application to the court about the judgment within the stipulated time of fourteen days.
He said the appeal was required to have been heard and decided upon within four months from the date the appeal was filed adding that the same appeal was assigned for examination on the 17th of February 2020 by a notice dated 12 February 2020.
Lawyer Sesay said it was now more than four months since the appeal in question was filed but that the action not heard in time for which they are now seeking an interpretation of Section 78 subsection 4 of the 1991 constitution of Sierra Leone.
He said the application before the Supreme Court was made under sections 124 and 125 of the constitution calling for an interpretation of the section which deals with the time required for the hearing and examination of an appeal emanating from an election petition.
The matter is presided over by Supreme court Judge Sengu Koroma along with Justice Ivan Sesay of the Court of Appeal and Justice Tonia Barnett.
Justice Roberts told the applicants that the Court of Appeal was the highest court to rule on election petitions and that the appellants were asking the Supreme Court to, if possible override the ruling of the Court of Appeal on election petitions.
Tendering an affidavit in opposition to the application, the counsel for the respondent, Musa Mewa told the court that the said release did not only seek an interpretation but that the applicants were attributing appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to which it was not entitled and therefore in violation of section 78 (5) of the constitution.
Lawyer Mewa added that paragraph 2 of the leave sought was demanding for the plaintiffs to be reinstated as the duly elected members of Parliament which against the provisions of section 78 (5) of the constitution. He said the nature of the application before the Supreme Court far exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by section 124 in its entirety and that section 125 was not properly invoked and hence could not be of any help to the applicants.
The Court of Appeal will rule on the issue next week.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
